The student teaching and learning consultant scheme 2.0

Teaching and Learning Consultants - Get a student's-eye perspective on your teachingFollowing the pilot last year at the University of Huddersfield which was a Higher Education Academy funded project, I am excited that the scheme is carrying on and new students have been recruited. I have had some questions about how students are recruited and what sort of training they do so I thought I would attempt to outline in more detail how this part of the scheme is structured.

The student teaching and learning consultants are recruited via the Students’ Union. The students are recruited mainly from second or third year students and from students who have an interest in the teaching and learning and improving the student experience. They send in a written application against an outline of the job role focusing on skills in communication, working as part of a team and maintaining confidentiality. In the second year of the scheme, students were also asked to attend an interview before they were selected.

The selected students are required to attend two training sessions before they work with staff and then also ongoing meetings to share feedback and address any issues or training needs that may arise from the consultancy work.

The ethos of partnership and the principles of feedback

The first training session consists of an introduction to the scheme that stresses the ethos of partnership, objective feedback and the need for confidentiality. In an introductory ice breaker exercise we share best and worst teaching and learning experiences as a way to start identifying some characteristics and get some ideas about everyone’s background experiences.

We also present and discuss different approaches to teaching and learning as well as introduce Chickering & Gamson’s principles for good practice in undergraduate education. At this point we stress to the students that they are not going to be trained to be experts in pedagogy or teaching excellence but that it is about offering their unique perspectives as students based on their experiences as learners in higher education. Often there can be a mismatch between what academic staff understand to be happening in teaching and learning activities and interactions and students’ understanding.

Students role play being consultants and staff using some case studies developed by the Students Consulting on Teaching project at Lincoln University. Fake moustaches help a lot with getting students to loosen up and have fun with it. This is particularly effective in getting them to imagine how they would present themselves and the scheme. Students are also introduced to some principles about observation, the power of descriptive language in opening up conversation as opposed to feedback based on opinion or judgement. We introduce the students to some principles for giving feedback.

  • Descriptive
  • Specific
  • Useable
  • Timely
  • Constructive
  • Acceptable

We also explore the emotional aspects of feedback, how difficult it is to ask someone to look at your professional practice, the feeling of leaving yourself open to criticism even if it is constructive.

Developing dialogue

For the next training session, students are asked to prepare a prompt sheet to support them in their work and to start them thinking about what they need to cover in conversations with academic staff.

In the second training session the focus is on reinforcing that the feedback they offer is constructive and focused on opening up dialogue about teaching and learning rather than evaluation. To achieve this we try out a short exercise in speaking in front of an audience and getting feedback we ask everyone to prepare a 5 minute talk about a subject they are passionate about and then pick two out of a hat. The apprehension felt by all goes a long way to illustrate the need for empathy.

We also bring in a guest lecturer who does a mock lecture for the students to offer feedback on.

As this is the second year of the scheme we have made the most of the experiences of the first year student consultant. We incorporated their feedback into the first presentations and two of them also delivered some scenarios for the new students to discuss and offer what their approach would be to this. They called them ‘awkward scenarios’ as they illustrated grey areas of what they might be asked to do, such as a lecturer asking for a student consultant to observe a lecturer but then also asking the student consultant to take note of what students were on their phones or talking when they shouldn’t be and report back.

In the second year of the scheme we have added training in a third session on listening skills with a focus on open-ended questioning and how to avoid leading questions.

What is it a about the word ‘feedback’?

Following the first year of the scheme, we have been having ongoing discussions about the problems of using the word ‘feedback’ with staff. Feedback can be a term that students and lecturer dislike as it implies evaluation and possible judgment of some sort, which is of course not what the scheme promotes. The term ‘Feedforward’ has been suggested as a way to signpost that the scheme is about development, however, there was a feeling that this wording possibly suggested a focus on offering solutions, which can also be problematic as the aim is dialogue.

See also last year’s post ‘The Student Consultants are coming’ from Dec 2012 on the training the student consultants did for more details


Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. (1987 ) ‘Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’AAHE Bulletin,  39(7), 3–7.

Chickering, A. W. and Gamson, Z. F. (1999), ‘Development and Adaptations of the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999: 75–81. doi: 10.1002/tl.8006

Posted by Kathrine Jensen (@kshjensen)

Posted in HEASTLC, Partnership, student engagement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Developing student achievement by promoting a culture of high expectation and bespoke interventions

Developing student achievement by promoting a culture of high expectation and bespoke interventions

The Teaching and Learning Institute is running a series of events to share the expertise, knowledge and reflections on practice of our National Teaching Fellows and University Teaching Fellows.

A photo of Jonathan Glazzard, University Teaching Fellow 2012

Jonathan Glazzard, University Teaching Fellow 2012

The first event was led by University Teaching Fellow Jonathan Glazzard from the School of Education and Professional Development. At this session Jonathan shared some of the strategies which resulted in all of the BA Primary Education Undergraduates achieving either a first or 2:1 classification in 2013. Jonathan explained how the students’ exceptional work had been confirmed in terms of quality and criticality by the external examiners.

A work integrated course design

It was fascinating to hear how the BA course had been radically redesigned to be a School-led model of teacher training, with ALL work placement activities informing the course. The teacher trainees benefitted by spending more time in school and their modules were partly delivered by school teachers both in school and at the university. All modules and assessments were adapted to relate directly to the work placement activities the students were doing in school; with a strong assessment focus being on exploring the application of theory to practice in relation to these activities. A wide range of inclusive assessment formats were used including presentation, role play, essay and group work.

Tracking students to support performance

Jonathan outlined how the teaching team had developed a system for tracking student performance in a number of areas in order to be able to intervene early on and offer a student the bespoke support they needed in order to move their achievements from, for example, a 2.2 to a 2.1 and from 2.1 to a first.

They developed careful tracking for monitoring performance in teaching and of assignment grades to determine the specific aspect of professional practice or academic performance that the student required support to improve.

Jonathan outlined the importance of:

  • Clear writing frames for assessment
  • Clear success criteria so students know what to do
  • Sharing student work, ‘what a good one looks like’, so they can see what they are aiming for
  • Listening to the students
  • Being accessible and supportive
  • Translating academic marking criteria – what does excellent critical analysis mean to a student? And what does it look like?
  • Getting students to engage with feedback by including reflections on how they addressed the feedback in subsequent assignments

This system was supplemented by lots of student engagement activities, such as monthly meetings with students, informal meetings to collect views and feedback. This was then followed up on and action taken. They also involved students, teachers in school and former students to develop a vision for ‘what is an outstanding course’. In this way students really had a say in shaping the course and the vision was owned by all involved.

A supportive culture of high expectations

Jonathan described the importance of a supportive culture which included being prepared to challenge underperformance but offer support to address areas for development. It was key to communicate high expectations that ‘satisfactory’ was not good enough and all students were aware that they needed to push themselves to achieve. This message ran through the course from pre-course info to students to posters with comments from external examiners and OFSTED reports, all of which celebrate the success of the course and students.

Jonathan also talked about the rigorous evaluation and improvement processes put in place, to ensure that students’ are supported to achieve the best possible results. There is an annual course improvement plan with termly actions, broken down into weekly action plans. This maintains a focus on constant development and evaluation which means the course is flexible, fluid and always up for revalidation.

As part of developing transparency with students and promoting an ethos of joint responsibility, students have access to all external examiners report and they are involved in OFSTED reporting. They see all the improvement and action plans. In this way they are partners in the learning process.

Developing supportive student-centered teaching and research

The seminar ended with a few comments on the – at times – competing agendas of supporting students and undertaking high level research. The requirements of OFSTED needing to be balanced against the University requirement whilst all the time taking into account the needs of the students. There was also discussion about the work and time involved in monitoring, tracking and offering interventions to enable students to improve in specific areas.

Sue Folley, Academic Development Advisor, commented that by using rubrics within GradeMark and setting up re-usable comments, it is possible to identify common and specific areas in within written assignments. Sue Folley has done some research into using rubrics with students. Using scoring rubrics is a way to break down the final grade and is useful when identifying specific areas that can be developed and for student to be able to see more clearly in which areas they are already achieving marks that would give them a first and where improvements could give them a better overall score. This method identified areas where interventions could be made to improve problem areas that affected a number of students. It also gave aspirations to students, clearly articulating where improvements could be made. Using scoring rubrics, although not applicable to all learning contexts also provide transparency for students in terms of detailing exactly how their final mark is made up, which students in the research really appreciated.

See Ellis, Cath and Folley, Susan (2009) The use of scoring rubrics to assist in the management of increased student assessment choice. In: ALT-C 2009, 8-10 September 2009, Manchester, UK.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144

Posted in Education and Professional Development, pedagogy, professional development, Teaching, UTF/NTF | Leave a comment

Creativity in Educational Development

The 18th Annual Staff and Educational Development Association conference was held in Bristol, 14th-15th November 2013. The theme of the conference was Creativity in Educational Development and I was lucky enough to attend.

For a really useful detailed commentary of the keynote by Guy Klaxton and a collection of some of the tweets from the conference, see the storify created by Helen Webster, who is an Academic Developer at Anglia Learning and Teaching, Anglia Ruskin University (a.k.a. @scholastic_rat on twitter).

Playing seriously

I went to a really useful workshop called ‘Thinking in 3D: using the methodologies of constructionism and Lego Serious Play (LSP) for educational development’ run by Alison James who is Associate Dean, Teaching and Learning, London College of Fashion (follow her on twitter @alisonrjames). We were giving a swift introduction to the principles of LSP and the four part process involved : question, build, share and reflect.

Using Lego to explore metaphors

Using Lego to explore metaphors

I enjoyed the focus on raising our awareness of metaphors we use in everyday language and linking this to creating Lego models that we then used to talk about a theme. In the photo I built a model of my role at the University which involves making connections, growing ideas, flying the flag for teaching and learning etc. The models are very effective as a way of articulating ideas and thinking and I would recommend trying it.

The session also reminded me of the importance of getting hands on and how much I agree with the theoretical premise of LSP – that you learn with your fingers & ‘activate’ brain/thinking this way.

Benefits of using diagrams to research digital literacies

I also enjoyed the workshop by Sarra Saffron Powell and Tünde Varga-Atkins (@tundeva on twitter) from University of Liverpool who presented findings from their SEDA funded research on digital literacies. For me the most useful part was the discussion of the method they used in semi-structured interviews to elicit perspectives and practices. Interviewees used stickers to map their practice and this visual task was a way to focus the discussion. See the report below for a full description of the method.

Powell, S. S.; Varga-Atkins, T. co-authors (2013) ‘Digital Literacies: A Study of Perspectives and Practices of Academic Staff’: a project report. Written for the SEDA Small Grants Scheme. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. July. Version 1.

This approach is similar to a mapping exercise employed by Dr Lesley Gourlay and Dr Martin Oliver in their research on digital literacies.

The other keynote was by Norman Jackson and was based on an enquiry into educational developers’ perspectives on creativity. You can find the summary and survey results on Norman Jackson’s website.

If you haven’t been to a SEDA conference, I would really recommend going, it is always a stimulating environment and I have made some great connections (and friends) at their events. Next conference is the Spring Conference in Newcastle, see the SEDA website for details.

Posted by Kathrine Jensen (@kshjensen)

Posted in Conference, Education and Professional Development | Leave a comment

Student perceptions of inspirational teaching

Exploring the concept of inspirational teaching was part of the Higher Education Academy funded project Students as Teaching and Learning Consultants. As part of this I undertook a qualitative analysis of the student nominations for the category ‘inspirational teaching’ in the Thank You Awards from 2012. The Thank You awards provide the opportunity for students to recognise a member of the University staff who has made a major positive impact on their time here.

There were 285 student nominations for the ‘Inspirational Teaching’ category in the 2012 Thank You Awards at the University of Huddersfield. The other categories were ‘Exceptional Assessment’ and Feedback and ‘Excellence in Student Support’. The short description of the Inspirational teaching category was:  “Nominate someone in this category if they connect with you and inspire passion for the subject.”

What students have to say about ‘Inspirational teaching’

With the caveat that there are overlaps between descriptive categories and they cannot be considered to be discrete categories, I identified four major categories:

  1. Supportive
  2. Passionate and knowledgeable
  3. Motivational
  4. Engaging


Student nominations in this category talk about staff being supportive, being helpful, assisting them, being approachable and friendly. The students highlight staff being available to them either in person or via, for example, email.

With 110 coded references as support this is the most frequent node in all the categories.

 “I had a rough time in year two. X was extremely understanding and gave me a lot of support and even asked how I was coping personally, not just from a work perspective, he made me feel valued as a student and as an individual.”

“When one of my second year modules was in crisis and I felt like a failure this woman’s support and words of kindness and inspiration spurred me to try and find a solution. Their industry knowledge and hard work means that we are provided with countless opportunities to improve our event industry experience.  Her hard work, approachability both inside and outside of the lecture room means this course is a joy to be a part of.”

Passionate and knowledgeable

This category covers nominations that describe staff as passionate about their subject, enthusiastic in their teaching. This also includes references to staff using humour or having a sense of humour as a positive and staff being considerate and respecting students.

“He demonstrates that he has a good understanding and a lot of passion for what he is teaching which is perpetually refreshing. He comes to every seminar or lecture with an inspirational amount of energy and he is a wonderful man to be educated by.”

“X has been a great lecturer and tutor this year, the way in which she teaches helps us not only to understand but experience. She has made lectures a joy to attend and has been very inspirational with her own personal stories incorporated in order to help us understand how theories are applied in industry. Great personality, great sense of humour, great tutor.”


In this category, students wrote about the way staff encouraged and supported them to develop and achieve as well as how staff had a positive impact on learning development, career and future study choices. Some of the nominations in this category talk about being challenged by staff and developing as a result.

“X has really inspired me with her teaching style. Her friendly lectures have taught me a lot about myself. She makes you feel like you can accomplish any challenge set in front of you and will always support you through both difficult times and times of celebration. All in all, a wonderful woman!”

 “X’s style of teaching is exciting and every day is a new day with a lot of challenging things to do. Even though, we come from different backgrounds and probably cultures but the group discussions which were always interactive showed us how globalised the world was. His steadfastness in giving us advanced reading for the next lecture made me fully prepared for active class participation.There were no surprises or designing lectures on the spot and there were no `passengers’ as everyone must participate making us all `drivers’…”


Nominations that describe staff, who are great at engaging students, who ensure all students are included, who are concerned with ensuring student understanding and have great ability ready to simplify complex information and make something understandable.  Students comment on staff being well prepared, organised, making sessions interactive, materials available to students and using a variety of techniques and formats to keep students engaged.

“In tutorials instead of sitting at the front and waiting for students to go to him for help, he consistently moves around the room speaking to us individually asking things such as “Anything you didn’t understand in the lecture”? or “How are you getting on with the tutorial”?”

“X’s lectures are clear and comprehensive. Her slides are organised and easy to follow making learning and revision more successful. Her lectures are demonstrative and interactive and she is always able to engage students in their learning. The… practicals are always clear and easy to follow, and X is on hand and happy to answer any queries in a way that encourages further questions and research. The feedback on practical reports is helpful and constructive and identifies where concepts have been misunderstood or material needs revising. X has also made available additional resources for revision, including revision packs and example questions. In addition to the excellent academic quality of X’s sessions, they are also fun and friendly, much as the lecturer herself.”

Inspirational teaching is all about the learner

Reflecting on the student nominations it strikes me that you could view them to be not so much concerned with describing aspects of inspirational teaching but rather they can be understood as being about learning. In the sense that many of the nominations describe staff who support students to be innovative, who guide them to become independent learners as well as to work collaboratively, who encourage and motivate them to learn and seek knowledge for themselves.

Perhaps this explains why the notion of supportive staff caring about students is the most frequently mentioned aspect by the students. It is really the students who are at the centre of this, developing their own confidence, understanding, abilities and achievements and the students are describing how staff have facilitated this process.

Although this is perhaps beyond the scope of the data, I would argue the data points towards the need to go beyond a focus on ‘inspirational teaching’ as delivering content in an engaging way and the personality of the staff members and refocus on learning and the many faceted experiences of the student body.

You can find more information and some recommendations for developing inspired learners in the report which is freely available from the University of Huddersfield repository:

Jensen, Kathrine (2013) “What is inspirational teaching? Exploring student perceptions of what makes an inspirational teacher”, Working Paper No.3, Teaching and Learning Institute at the University of Huddersfield

And you can also find some short videos of students and staff talking about inspirational teaching at on the Inspirational teaching resources page.

PS: What about teaching excellence?

After I published the working paper, a literature review of teaching excellence in higher education was published by the Higher Education Academy. The work was carried out by Dr Vicki Gunn and Dr Anna Fisk. It is a really substantial piece of work and there are lots of really interesting findings including the recommendation to develop a teaching excellence taxonomy and provisional definitions for differentiating between teaching excellence, teacher excellence and excellent learning (Gunn and Fisk 2013:19). I should say that I have not finished digesting this research but my initial impressions are that this represents a re-focus on the role of the teacher and on teaching practice and I am not quite sure where this leaves learning and the idea of student and staff being partners in education. I am trying not to fall into thinking of this in terms of rather unhelpful dichotomies like teaching/learning because I dont’ believe this reflects the complexity of what the experiences and relationships of students and staff. My thinking on this is very much a work in progress and I would welcome any comments/thoughts on this.

Posted by Kathrine S.H. Jensen (@kshjensen)

Research Assistant in the Teaching and Learning Institute, University of Huddersfield

Posted in HEASTLC, pedagogy, Research, Teaching | Leave a comment

Undergraduate students: Partners in Research

I attended the Higher Education Academy (HEA) event: Students as Partners in Undergraduate Research which took place at University of Sheffield on Tuesday 22nd October 2013. For more see HEA web pages on the ‘Students as Partners’ strand. It was a programme packed with short presentations on a variety of initiatives under the themes:

  • Students as partners in extra/co-curricular research
  • Students as partners in interdisciplinary research
  • Students as co-researchers in learning and teaching practice & policy

The keynote by Dr Stuart Hampton-Reeves covered his experience of seeing the large-scale undergraduate conferences in the US and how this spurred him on to developing the British conference of Undergraduate Research. The 2014 conference will be at University of Nottingham in April and the call for papers is out now! Prof Hampton-Reeves also talked about how transformative research partnerships are for students and staff.

Ask the students about their experience of learning!

We then heard about the Sheffield Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) scheme where students work on a research project with staff for six weeks over the summers.

And about students involved in pedagogic research at Northampton University

It was particularly great to see so many student presenters and hear from them the benefits of undertaking research in partnership with staff and be able to ask them questions as they were very much part of the group work that took place throughout the event. The Student Ambassadors for Learning and Teaching (SALT) from the University of Sheffield presented on a number of initiatives and I was especially impressed with the Arts & Humanities students who designed an interdisciplinary module that would explore issues of ‘value’ in learning and teaching.

At the end of the event I was in no doubt that undergraduate student were able to carry out, contribute to, develop and inform ongoing academic research. It also came through in all the presentations that these initiatives can be transformational in the sense that staff and students come to view each other differently and have different relationships. This different kind of student/staff relationship echoed findings from the Student as Teaching and Learning Consultants scheme, an ongoing scheme at the University of Huddersfield, where students work in partnership with staff to enhance teaching and learning. I have written about this in a previous blogpost about the scheme.

It was also highlighted that both students and staff authors are welcome to publish in the HEA journals

The twitter tag for the event was #UGRes and I storified the tweets later that day, see Students as Partners in Undergraduate Research

Posted by Kathrine Jensen, research assistant at the Teaching and Learning Institute (@kshjensen)

Posted in Conference, Partnership, pedagogy, Research, Teaching, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Exploring strategies for successful student retention

Guest post from Daniel Yip (@DanielYip22) Placement Student at the Teaching and Learning Institute (TALI). Studying Chemistry and Forensic Science. Daniel attended the Retention Forum on the 17th September 2013.

The main question for this forum was:

‘For students enrolled in a given year, did they return to continue their studies the following year?’ – If not, why not?

As a student you will have never considered other students leaving prematurely from their course as a bad thing, or a large impact onto the University. However this forum, pieced everything into perspective, and a solution had to be found, fast! If a student commits to a degree, and leaves after their first year for any particular reason, the University loses the funding that they would have received, if the student continued with their course. The Retention Forum was a gathering of staff from all the schools of the University, and a handful had to present their ideas to stop students from leaving, what research they conducted, and identify why they are leaving prematurely. If not this could affect the reputation, economy, social and ethical impact of the University.

The presentations were spectacularly delivered, and highlighted statistics that they have conducted through their research, regarding Non-retained students. Key questions were asked in discussions between presentations such as;

  • ‘’Are the students right for the course when they start?’
  • ‘Is a stronger selection process needed?’ 
  • ‘Is there a particular school retaining more students that others?’’

These questions had to be brought up and debated, as it could affect the University uniformly if they brought about change. The simple target for this year is to retain more students, but getting there will be complicated. In the previous year the University was successful in retaining student, and this was a great achievement, but further effort is needed to get an ideal low figure of non-retention students.

 “In the final analysis, the key to successful student retention lies with the institution, in its faculty and staff, not in any one formula or recipe. It resides in the ability of faculty and staff to apply what is known about student retention to the specific situation in which the institution finds itself.”

(Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College. London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.)

For more information if requiring Retention statistics and additional presentation slides from the forum contact Sarah Broxton

Posted in Learning experience, Research, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Future of Student Engagement – RAISE Conference 2013

The Researching, Advancing & Inspiring Student Engagement (RAISE) Network held its annual conference ‘The Future of Student Engagement: Partnerships, Practices, Policies and Philosophies’, 12-13 Sep at Nottingham Trent University.

Colin Bryson from Newcastle University opened with a presentation called ‘Partnership – why it is the way forward for student engagement’

Colin set out his definition of student engagement, which is about being and becoming through fostering a sense of belonging and community, autonomy and creativity, confidence and self assurance. Colin ended the presentation by asking us to consider some of the challenges to the future of student engagement:

  • How do we create opportunity for all students? Not just the champions/the few.
  • How obligatory should partnership and participation be for all students?
  • Are there limits/boundaries to student/staff co-determination?

I think the comment from Students as Partners twitter account sums up the benefits to using the idea of partnership in relation to student engagements.

Students and staff engaging via a Teaching and Learning Consultancy scheme

With my colleague Dr Liz Bennett I presented a paper called ‘A student and staff partnership model to enable dialogue and enhance teaching and learning’ with findings from the Higher Education Academy funded project Students as Teaching and Learning Consultants. We argued that the consultancy scheme that was set up as part of the project created a space where students and staff could step outside normal roles and the traditional student/teacher relationship. Throughout the project students have been keen to engage with a staff perspective and this has been the case for a number of staff who participated as well. We argue that through this model both student and staff are able to occupy a liminal position that offers different insights and produces a different kind of student/staff relationship. See also previous project blog posts about the new role of students and the new relationship with staff.

We used a conceptual framework for student engagement developed by Ella Kahu in her paper Framing student engagement in higher education, Studies in Higher Education,Vol. 38, Iss. 5, 2013 and as it turned out Ella Kahu was actually at the conference! So it was also a great opportunity to say hi to Ella (who is at @EllaKahu).

Second keynote was by Nick Zepke from Massey University, New Zealand.

The first day ended with a book launch for The Student Engagement Handbook, Practice in Higher Education edited by Elisabeth Dunne and Derfel Owen

Just talk to us

The second day started with a student panel where we heard a range of student stories about engagement. A few of the students – reflecting on the first day of the conference – wanted more practical demonstrations of student engagement, ideas that worked (and didn’t work) that they could take back to their institutions.

Some key advice that the students had for staff in relation to student engagement were:

  • Be careful with the jargon when you promote engagement
  • Be excited to be there and doing your job (and be excited about working with us)
  • Don’t be judgemental of your students – work with them, be receptive to new ideas

Multifaceted approach to student engagement

I was impressed with the amount of initiatives going on at Birmingham City University, they are really embedding student/staff engagement and partnership across the institution with their ‘umbrella of opportunity’ – students as academic partners, employees, mentors, entrepreneurs and in collaborative projects.

Also enjoyed hearing about research done by PhD student Shanna Saubert (University of Leeds) into international students and their experiences of engagement.

I caught a great session by students and staff from the University of Reading showcasing the OSCAR online studio community – this facilitates collaborative working as well as students showing their work (from the time they receive an offer – even before they start at University, amazing really…).

Key take-aways: Collaboration and going beyond the traditional conference format

What really struck me at this conference was that creating opportunities for students and staff to have informal conversations and to engage in genuine collaboration seem to be key to developing a sense of shared responsibility and a community of engaged students and staff.

I also talked to a few of the student delegates over lunch on the second day of the conference and was struck by their feedback on the conference format. They wanted more practical ideas, more participation, more stuff actually produced and less of the paper presentation and panel debate formats that most HE staff have probably gotten far too used to. I think what the students were suggesting was much more like a ‘hackathon’ where there is collaboration on the day and also the potential for outputs or like a ‘TeachMeet’ with a focus on practical ideas and mini presentations

Don’t reduce students to consumers

It was great to have students at the conference and also representation from the National Union of Students (NUS). I did not see Rachel Wenstone’s presentation where she mentioned the NUS Manifesto For Partnership but I have seen her speak against the idea of students as consumers. Anyone interested in student engagement and student/staff partnership should view this recording of her keynote at the Association for Learning Technology.

RAISE Conference in tweets

It was great to see so many delegates tweeting about sessions etc and very useful to be able to follow the conference activities. To see some of the tweets, please click on the link to a RAISE Storify I created following the conference – may not have captured all the tweets as it was done a few days after the event.

Posted by Kathrine Jensen (@kshjensen)

Posted in Conference, HEASTLC, Partnership | Leave a comment